Spelling of the President's title

[larkvi]

It seems a very peculiar thing, in a country whose languages are many but do not include Latin, to base spelling on a language that is not only long gone but was never spoken in this country at all.

Well, if the word, and its ending come from that language...

??? Once Norman-French fell from favour, it was the main language for the Elite in the church, law, diplomacy, and politics.

I would point out that Latin had an extensive use in Britain before the Norman Conquest, as well.

And when english had no fixed way of spelling words, it was perfectly obvious to look at latin (which had a more fixed spelling) and use that as basis for spelling english derivations.


I think this vastly overstates the regularity of Mediaeval Latin, which is a serious cause of migraines to classicists making the switch to Mediaeval Studies here at the Centre. Med. Lat. is more or less a hodge-podge of pidgins, dialects, and just-plain-wrong Latin use.

Oh, and just to raise the level of pedantry in this debate even higher, I would like to point out that John, when referring to 'Linguistics,' above, is actually referring more appropriately to 'Philology.'

Valete!

Sean Michael Winslow
Centre for Mediaeval Studies
University of Toronto
sean.winslow
at
utoronto.ca

[Al]

I think people are falling victim to a common misunderstanding. Latin may have been used a) by some churchmen and b) as a language of law and politics. That does not mean, however, that it was used by the people. there is some debate as to how far it was understood by the churchmen using it. One common complaint at the time of the Reformation was that priests did not know what they were saying but just relied on their memory. That is, they had learned the services by rote. However, the point is that Latin was never a language of the people. If we are supposed to base our spelling on it, why don't we use the Celtic languages for a spelling guide. After all, they were spoken for a longer period by more people in this country. Why do we spell, for example, "galore" in the way we do? Why don't we spell it "gu leor"? We drink whisky. We don't drink "uisge [beatha]". Why don't we use those spellings? Those would be the etymologically correct ways. I suggest one of the reasons is that English is not a Celtic language. But nor is it a Romantic language. If English should conform to anything, it should conform to Germanic spellings and etymology.

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[puzzled]

[s]Al wrote on 10:04, 13th Jul 2003:
I think people are falling victim to a common misunderstanding. Latin may have been used a) by some churchmen and b) as a language of law and politics. That does not mean, however, that it was used by the people.

"The people" were largely illiterate or couldn't afford books, so they never had much call to "spell". The rich, who were often latin-educated, however, could afford books and needed to write so how they are going to spell 'english' is going to be influenced by the only other language they are likely to know - Latin. This strikes me as fairly logical.

As for using celtic languages, with the exception of cornwall, England didn't have many speakers of them.

[Al]

1) Actually, many of the "upper classes" were illiterate. Why do think each lord's household would have one or more clerks to read and write documents. The only members of the nobility who had more than a cursory education would be younger sons destined for a career in the church. How likely is it that the upper classes, even if they had been taught Latin, were going to use it as an everyday language? The sole purpose of language is to communicate. Just with whom were they going to communicate using a dead language? And even if there had been pockets of highly educated, Latin enthusiasts in the shires of England they would have small chance to use the language. It is known for a fact that until the reign of Edward I of England that the everyday language of the nobility was Norman French.

2)Leaving aside the rather dubious position of Cornwall being a part of England for the moment, I think you'll find that "England" was pretty much completely Celtic-speaking until the various Germanic barbarian tribes invaded.

And anyway, I wasn't just talking about England.

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[Anon.]

[s]Al wrote on 18:17, 13th Jul 2003:
And anyway, I wasn't just talking about England.

Why not? England was the country where English was spoken. The Welsh spoke Welsh, and the Scots spoke Scots.

[Al]

I note you conveniently ignore the facts -

1)English was spoken before "England" existed
2)Welsh was spoken in Strathclyde and Cumbria
3)The Welsh inhabited a far greater area than modern day Wales. It is known that Welsh was spoken in areas of the midlands of modern England
4)The "Scots" spoke Gaelic long before they spoke Scots
5)The Picts spoke.....no one knows, but probably a form of Q-Celtic (similar to Welsh)
6)Even as little as 500 years ago there were many forms of English. Many of these were not readily comprehended by "English" speakers from other parts of England

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[Anon.]

[s]Al wrote on 20:27, 13th Jul 2003:
6)Even as little as 500 years ago there were many forms of English. Many of these were not readily comprehended by "English" speakers from other parts of England

How things have changed. Or maybe not.

But according to your list, English was not spoken outside the area that is presently England. So I suspect my point still stands (although I'm not certain, 'cos I can't remember what my point was).

[larkvi]

although I'm not certain, 'cos I can't remember what my point was).



There was a point to all this?!

[Barry Joss]

Actually, "English" of a sort was spoken in some of what is now Scotland, and Scots (and this is really going to spark a controversy) wasn't much more than another strain of that language. Much of what was to become Scotland spoke Norse dialects or Gaelic. It is, however, dangerous to think in terms of our modern homogonised language when discussing earlier times.

Al is absolutely right in saying that many "English" speakers would have found one another mutually unintelligible. That is largely because what we now think of as English is predominantly derived from the dialect of the London region. Thus our spellings and pronunciations owe more to the dissemination of literature (the King James Bible being a notable example) from that cultural centre. And that part of the world was, as an administrative centre, very heavily influenced by both Latin and Norman French though being grounded in old Germanic tongues.

Its linguistc acendency has, perforce, to an extent marginalised some of our many other influences (e.g. Danish), but none of them can truly be discounted (my own "marginal" example provided several of our most common words and an entirely new tense) as modern English is a wonderfully acquisitive langauge composed of words derived from practically every other tongue.

As for the initial question of convenor versus convener; it is, like almost all other questions in the English language, a matter of personal preference and let no language maven try to tell you otherwise. If you favour the -or spelling over the -er you are no more "right" or "wrong" than someone who favors that supposedly Americanised spelling or who prefers -ise to -ize. That's the joy of language, kids, it's alive and always developing and adapting.

There can be few things more irritating to the student of philology than someone trying to prescribe how the langauge should be. Or posturing about how an "impure" Americanism or a ghastly hybrid Latin-Greek word has managed to sneak into our hallowed lexicon. Live with it. Change happens.

[Eliot Wilson]

Change... happens??? No-one told me!!! That's not why I came to St. Andrews...

[Donald Renouf]

[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 10:10, 15th Jul 2003:
Change... happens??? No-one told me!!! That's not why I came to St. Andrews...

Ditto.

[Barry Joss]

It's why I left!

[Donald Renouf]

SHAME!

[Foolish Pedant]

[s]Barry Joss wrote on 18:00, 15th Jul 2003:
It's why I left!


I thought that day would never happen.
What caused you to leave?

[Barry Joss]

Who are you that you should want this information?

[Foolish Pedant]

I am the general public.
I am the population of St Andrews.
I am the collective unwashed.

I have been invited to parties across the world; travelled to places previously unthought of.
I have dined with the poor, and entertained the rich.
I can demonstrate my physical prowess to the masses, yet I wouldn't hesitate to bow to other's superiority.
I have visited the bottoms of the deepest seas and the peaks of the highest mountains in the same day.
I can fly like a eagle, and sing like a lark.
I can last forty rounds with the toughest fighter, but Mozart still makes me cry.
My eyes can see further than you'd think, and I hear everything.
I read daily, and write during most weekends.
I have argued with the devil, and debated with the gods. We all agreed that Blue Stilton is the finest cheese.


Who am I? I'm everyone I've ever met.

[Barry Joss]

Then you are a curious person indeed. And the Devil's view on stilton notwithstanding, I think you'll find that "others'" would be more apt.

Returning to my original question: not so much one of 'of whom have you absorbed the aspects' so much as one of 'who, de jure, are you?'.